> On 25 Dec 2018, at 00:54, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 1:16:36 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:15, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:37:21 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 22 Dec 2018, at 03:29, [email protected] <> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function using >>> >>>> complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective in the >>> >>>> same way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the square >>> >>>> of the absolute value of the wave function is observable because that >>> >>>> produces a probability that we can measure in the physical world that >>> >>>> is objective, provided anything deserves that word; but it also >>> >>>> yields something that is not deterministic. >>> >>> >>> It is still deterministic. >>> >>> >>That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function is >>> >>deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not. >>> >>> > This is incorrect. >>> >>> What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the >>> Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave >>> function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to get >>> something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave >>> function and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle at >>> any spot; but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root of >>> -1, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the exact >>> same probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you get >>> weird stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get >>> probabilities not certainties. >>> >>> >>> Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it just says >>> >>> that you have ended up with a system with many sets of observers, each >>> >>> of which observed different outcomes. >>> >>> >>That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is controversial, >>> >>but what is not controversial is the wave function the Schrodinger >>> >>equation describes mathematically. Consider the wave functions of these >>> >>2 systems: >>> 1) An electron of velocity V starts at X and after one second it is >>> observed at point Y and then goes on for another second. >>> 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X and then >>> goes on for 2 seconds. >>> >>> The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after you've >>> taken the square of the absolute value of both you will find radically >>> different probabilities about where you're likely to find the electron >>> after 2 seconds. And as I said this is not controversial, people disagree >>> over quantum interpretations but nobody disagrees over the mathematics, and >>> the mathematical objects that the Schrodinger equation describes in those >>> two systems are NOT the same. >>> >>> > If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter making the >>> > measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you unambiguously the >>> > system [...] >>> >>> The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and >>> deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will be >>> but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do know the >>> square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us the probability >>> of obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular aspect of the >>> system, but other than that things become controversial. Some people (the >>> shut up and calculate people) say that's the only thing the math is telling >>> us, but others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot Wave people) say >>> the math is telling us more than that but disagree about what that is. But >>> everybody agrees about the math itself, and if an observation is made >>> forget about what the math may mean the very mathematics of the Schrodinger >>> wave changes. >>> >>> > If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you simulated an >>> > experimenter's mind on a quantum computer, and then fed in as sensory >>> > input one of the qubits registers prepared to be in a superposed state (0 >>> > and 1). >>> >>> I don't have a quantum computer and I don't have direct access to any mind >>> other than my own so I can't do that, I could tell you my hunch about what >>> I believe would happen and it's probably similar to your hunch but other >>> people, including some very smart ones, disagree so we could be wrong. >>> >>> >>> Such people disbelieve in the Schrodinger equation. >>> >>> Suppose (courtesy of Bruce) the SE represents a horse race with the >>> probabilities varying wrt time. What's your view of the status of the SE >>> when one horse wins and others loose? AG >>> >>> >>> I am not sure I understand the question. >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> When the horse race is over (in this world), does it continue in other >>> worlds where the losers get a chance to win, or does the SE cease to be >>> relevant in any descriptive way? AG >> >> >> The SE remains always correct. It is only if you make the other “universe" >> disappearing that the SE is not correct. >> >> BS. You utterly fail to understand the point of the horse race example. The >> SE doesn't extend to other worlds. > > ? > > The SE is what define the other worlds, or superposition terms, and the SE > describes them literally. The double linearity (tensor product and evolution) > makes the SE describing the prediction relatively to each branch. The > collapse of the wave is a non linear process (if it is seen as a process) > violating the SE. > > You insist that everything that's possible to happen, must happen.
Not at all. I say only that all terms of a quantum superposition needs to be taken into account to get the prediction right. > Nothing to support this idea but your bias. Not at all. This is supported by all quantum experiment, from the two slits to the hydrogen atoms (and others), to Hawking radiation. It is the collapse of the wave which is not supported by experiment, nor even well defined. > In a horse race, you are demanding that universes are created in which each > horse wins. I have never said this. Horses are usually classical conceived, and if one horse is better than the others for classical reasons, that horse will be the one winning the race in all, or in a majority, of the superposition, weighed accordingly. > Do you really think this is how the universe functions? As for the SWE, > you've imposed your will on where it applies, and appeal to the non linearity > of the collapse process to justify your preference. ? I d the contrary. I appeal to the fact that there is no nonlinearity in the global wave describing the couple “observer + thing-observed”. The non linearity belongs to the mind of each observer in the branch, like with the first person indeterminacy, which explains why a context globally computable and determined can explain why observer get non computable and non determined experimental results. > But there ARE non linear processes in nature. So your claim is poorly based. > AG That seems to contradict what you say above. I guess you meant “there are no non-linear processes in nature” ? Bruno > > Many-worlds (or many-histories, …) is basically just the SWE, without > collapse. Everett theory is just Copenhagen minus the idea of a physical > collapse. >> Those who claim otherwise are adding something to QM which suits their >> fancy; that everything that's possible to happen, must happen. > Only with a special probability, and relatively to the observer. > Yes, that “everything” needs to be realise, or we don’t get the interference. > > I don't see why interference depends on everything happening. The many > universes you claim come into existence when a single outcome occurs, are > disjoint. So it's hardly obvious why the interference observed over many > outcomes Iin our universe, depends on these other universes. AG > >> Talk about bad metaphysics! You're one of its prime culprits! As for >> Aristotle's physics creeping into physics, it doesn't. AG > Aristotle is just the idea that there is a primary physical universe. If you > agree this could be wrong, that will help you to see the immaterialist > consequences of Digital Mechanism. > > Most people today don't know or care what Aristotle thought. Physics is > basically phenomenological. AG > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
